(15-04-2017 10:39 AM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote: There is no self? But what is that active, organizing, creating element that knits experience together and makes judgments on how to act or react?

I didn't say "there is no self". I said the body is the self, not consciousness -- which is just one of the body's processes.

However, philosopher Thomas Metzinger did jump to the conclusion that no real self exists, based on his understanding of neurophysiology. See his books Being No One and The Ego Tunnel if you are interested.

(15-04-2017 10:51 AM)Stephen Pedersen Wrote: Its not just called ai, the problem is strong ai. They've been trying to develop consciousness through ai for some time. I'm not saying it is impossible. However, my belief is is that once they do they will sit back in their chairs and ask themelves, "how did I do that?" We can't even explain our own consciousness. It's one of the mysteries to wonder about... unless your Daniel Dennett who believes its all a fiction.

And if freewill is debunked then why I am talking to you guys?

Consciousness is emergent......

If it is emergent then how does it emerge? Let's say a train is going down the railway and steam emerges from the train is the steam emergent? How does something completely different emerge that seems like non physical "stuff" like ideas, motives, desires, feelings and sensations? It seems to be a new sort of ontology, even a dualism that emerges.

Personally I don't subscribe to the notion that free will does not exist, that is to say I think it's a complex issue and I'm not convinced we have the full answer yet, but I do know what Bucky is talking about and don't disagree with the work that has been done on the issue thus far.

However (and more importantly) as a pragmatic person I also don't give a flying fuck. To me it's a pointless question as the answer will have no effect on my life one way or another. It sure as hell won't impact my (either free or not free) decisions.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.

Ah, I lean towards the anti realist akin of Van Fraassen and Nancy Cartwright. Cartwright resembles pragmatism herself in that theories are true in their capacity to explain, but not real as the really real idealized theory they try to impose. I'm looking forward to your posts!

If it is emergent then how does it emerge? Let's say a train is going down the railway and steam emerges from the train is the steam emergent? How does something completely different emerge that seems like non physical "stuff" like ideas, motives, desires, feelings and sensations? It seems to be a new sort of ontology, even a dualism that emerges.

What is the problem with just calling all those things "symbolic processing"? Why reify them at all?

If it is emergent then how does it emerge? Let's say a train is going down the railway and steam emerges from the train is the steam emergent? How does something completely different emerge that seems like non physical "stuff" like ideas, motives, desires, feelings and sensations? It seems to be a new sort of ontology, even a dualism that emerges.

Really? Do we really have to explain this again? Can't you like... read the fucking forums? The information you seek is out there, it's also here in numerous other places.....

Fine but I'm gonna let myself wake up first before I answer this. I'm grumpy enough as it is cause I'm tired.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.

(15-04-2017 10:52 AM)Full Circle Wrote: These aren’t problems at all, at least not for me since I subscribe to scientific realism

ps hyperlinked the wrong descriptor

Ah, I lean towards the anti realist akin of Van Fraassen and Nancy Cartwright. Cartwright resembles pragmatism herself in that theories are true in their capacity to explain, but not real as the really real idealized theory they try to impose. I'm looking forward to your posts!

Things that are "true" are those things that can be demonstrated to be factually accurate and describe reality. Philosophy and Theology will never get you there. You are like a kid that says I want to be a fireman, then you put on your little hat and sit in your room telling yourself you're a fireman for the rest of your life. Put more effort into this dude. Don't stop at the beginning, have some follow through. Go beyond just the philosophy dig deeper. You can do this (I mean you might not do it, but I prefer to think you are physically capable of doing so if YOU try)

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.